Central Information Commission
Samir Zaveri vs Central Railway on 27 April, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
केन्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CRAIL/A/2018/146536
Samir Zaveri ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. Railways, Central ...प्रनतिािी/Respondent
Railway, Mumbai.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16-02-2018 FA : 23-03-2018 SA : 24-07-2018
CPIO : 19-03-2018 FAO : 14-05-2018 Hearing : 17-04-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Railways, Central Railway, Mumbai seeking following information pertaining to arrested persons by the Railway Protection Force in Central Railway, Mumbai division from January 2017 to December 2017:-
"A) Furnish Statistics of total number of persons who were arrested by RPF under Railway Act cases punishable for one month to one year jail charges in the Central Railway Mumbai division. Please provide information Railway Act sections as well as RPF posts break up wise.
B) Furnish statistics of total number of arrested persons who were released on Bail. Furnish cash bail, surety and personal bail break up wise information.
C) Furnish statistics of total number of arrested persons who were produced before respective court.Page 1 of 5
D) Furnish statistics of arrest cases in which reasons for arrest with compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court guidelines in case of Arnesh Kumar were written and submitted before respective court at the time of producing arrested persons.
E) Furnish statistics of memorandums of arrest prepared and submitted under Section 41B of CrPC before respective court when arrested persons were produced before court."
2. The CPIO responded on 19-03-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 23-03-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 14-05- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Samir Zaveri attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent could not attend the hearing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant limited his queries to the point nos. 'D & E' of the RTI application and further requested this Commission to direct the respondent to furnish him correct and authentic information. Moreover, he submitted that as per Section 41B(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an arrest memo is prepared by the police officer while making an arrest and the same is also submitted to the Judicial Magistrate when the arrested person is produced before the court.
Decision:
5. This Commission observes that the information sought on point no. 'D' of the RTI application requires analysis of the arrest memo annexed in each individual file and therefore, the CPIO cannot be expected to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it. This is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04-12-2014 in W.P.(C) 6634/2011 & CM No.13398/2011 titled as The Registrar, Supreme Court Of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors., wherein, it was observed as follows:-
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Page 2 of 5 Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant. The Supreme Court in Aditya Bandhopadhyay (supra) held as under:-
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of "information" and "right to information" under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant."
6. Further, this Commission observes that the CPIO cannot be expected to compile the information which requires disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. On this aspect, it is apt to mention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 09/08/2011 titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., wherein, it was observed as under:-
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a Page 3 of 5 scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
7. However, if the information on point no. 'E' is already maintained and available in the desired form, the respondent is directed to furnish the same to the appellant as per the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. If no such information is available, a categorical reply of this effect should be given to the appellant, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) दिनांक / Date:- 17-04-2020 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यावपत प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, M/o. Railways, ASC/APIO/RPF/Wadibunder, Central Railway, O/o. The Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F., C.S.M.T., Mumbai - 400001.
2. Mr. Samir Zaveri Page 5 of 5